Is that they are in fact paths.
Don't get me wrong, I love Paizo and I love they're adventures. But the idea of adventure paths is somewhat problematic. The idea that you must go here, here and here on you're way from the beginning of the campaign to the climatic clash with the big bad. Players want to control they're character's destinies in meaningful ways. But often times adventure paths, because they are paths, tend to limit player choices.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Perhaps, instead of just having one path, there can be more than one, all leading to the conclusion, though the conclusion may change depending on what paths are taken. And the paths are not just stuff that happens, but more along the lines of situations that the PCs can get involved with. Thus the players' choices and actions are not a hindrance to the progression of the adventure, but a driving force behind it.
The main problem I see with my idea is that it would be hard for Paizo to implement. We're talking about perhaps dozens of different modules instead of six. You could fit it in six volumes, but that'd be pretty barebones. More like an overview of the different possibilities, while I'm seeing something more fleshed out with various factions and adventuring locations and possible encounters involving them. A good idea, but perhaps impractical.
Is that they are in fact paths.
Don't get me wrong, I love Paizo and I love they're adventures. But the idea of adventure paths is somewhat problematic. The idea that you must go here, here and here on you're way from the beginning of the campaign to the climatic clash with the big bad. Players want to control they're character's destinies in meaningful ways. But often times adventure paths, because they are paths, tend to limit player choices.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Perhaps, instead of just having one path, there can be more than one, all leading to the conclusion, though the conclusion may change depending on what paths are taken. And the paths are not just stuff that happens, but more along the lines of situations that the PCs can get involved with. Thus the players' choices and actions are not a hindrance to the progression of the adventure, but a driving force behind it.
The main problem I see with my idea is that it would be hard for Paizo to implement. We're talking about perhaps dozens of different modules instead of six. You could fit it in six volumes, but that'd be pretty barebones. More like an overview of the different possibilities, while I'm seeing something more fleshed out with various factions and adventuring locations and possible encounters involving them. A good idea, but perhaps impractical.
Just because you have to go from point A to point B does not mean you don't get to choose how you get there. The adventure paths normally give you goals, but it is still up to the players to decide hot achieve those goals.
Another thing is that players often do as they wish, and the DM may have to think quickly, but it does not mean players are boxed in. Many campaigns/paths have consequences for certain actions so they are not as boxed in as they seem.
Yes, while I'm certain all of these paths are exceptionally well written, "paths" in general do not agree with my sort of play. I want a world I can explore, looking for adventure, not a story to be a part of, with a predetermined plot and chapters etc. I personally dislike those sorts of adventures, but I'm sure many do like them, which I guess is why they sell so well. I have only ever run one "path" sort of adventure, and that was back in the Forgotten Realms I ran the Avatar trilogy of modules. It was fun but then I was the DM and not a player. Were I a player I probably would have wandered off of the plot many times struggling to find the invisible walls in the world (crpg metaphor).
Yes, while I'm certain all of these paths are exceptionally well written, "paths" in general do not agree with my sort of play. I want a world I can explore, looking for adventure, not a story to be a part of, with a predetermined plot and chapters etc. I personally dislike those sorts of adventures, but I'm sure many do like them, which I guess is why they sell so well. I have only ever run one "path" sort of adventure, and that was back in the Forgotten Realms I ran the Avatar trilogy of modules. It was fun but then I was the DM and not a player. Were I a player I probably would have wandered off of the plot many times struggling to find the invisible walls in the world (crpg metaphor).
Those are games that have no central plot, and you can really only do them as home-brews. You can't publish something like that since it requires the DM to build around the player's wants and needs. I have done them, and they are fun.
The paths usually keep players in the story due to the fact that if the players don't stay on the story bad things happen, like commoners dying. Now if your character does not care about anyone else then the DM may need to give you a reason to care.off topic: I like them because I need a goal to accomplish. If I just show up at the table, not knowing why I am adventuring I would probably save enough gold to retire. Why go out fighting monsters when you can get rich and then live comfortably?
You should really check out Kingmaker, since it's going to be the least linear AP to date and is Paizo's effort to appeal to gamers who prefer a more sandbox style game.
Yoda: I had not head about Kingmaker, or rather, I had heard the name, but knew/know nothing about it. I'll have to check it out if you suggest it is a sandboxy product.
I personally like to make adventurers who seek out adventure, not characters who have to have an adventure thrust upon them by a DM. I prefer characters who have their own internal motivations for adventuring, thus taking some responsibility off of the DM. He does not always have to worry about if I am adequately "hooked" when I make a character who either does good because its the right thing to do, or simply because I want to explore the world and find adventure, digging in lost crypts, searching through forgotten tomes for clues to dangerous places that are rumored to hold vast wealth. Adventure is its own reward!
Some prefer the other style, where you are more of a passive participant in a story, which is fine too, its just not my bag baby :)
Well, no you don't get to choose how you get there, not unless you're DM makes up more stuff. In Rise of the Runelords you start with Burning Offerings, then you got to the Skinsaw Murders, the Hook Mountain Massacre, etc. There is some degree of freedom, but ultimately what's written is one path. The stuff between the beginning of the campaign and the final adventure is as best as I can tell, filler. Well written, fun, entertaining filler, but filler nonetheless. It's just there to give you something to do until you are high enough level to confront Karzoug. Yes it ties into that ultimate goal, but ultimately if all that's important is to get high enough level to confront Karzoug, I'd rather I get to choose how I do that. I have nothing against epic fantasy adventures that involve saving the world. It's just that I disagree with that idea that that should always be facilitated by a path-based setup. I mean yes DMs are not constricted to what is written in the modules, but then why bother buying modules in the first place?
Director of Brand Strategy
|
It sounds like the products you should be looking for are the Pathfinder Chronicles line. They set up details of the world and potential plot hooks but give no actual plot. Many groups like telling a months-long story with a beginning, middle, and end, and the APs and modules provide them this experience. If your group isn't like that, then published adventures just aren't for you. That doesn't mean there's an inherent "problem" with them, just that they aren't as useful for some groups as for others. But the APs are and always have been Paizo's best selling product line. So they must be doing something right. As long as a GM and the players all understand that they're operating within an established narrative, they're not a problem. But any time everyone in a group isn't on the same page in terms of what play experience they want it's a problem, whether that experience is a sandbox game or a "railroady" narrative.
|
For what its worth re the APs its up to both the players and the DMs to make what they want of the game. I've ran Savage Tide and am running Crimson Throne. The campaign provides a framework but I've never felt it to be a straightjacket. As a DM I alter elements to suit my style and the players. Like any game the players create their own characters and goals and as a DM its up to me to try to respond to those and weave them into the campaign and allow their decisions to change or modify the course of events.
Its a matter of collaboration. When I started the Crimson Throne I told the players upfront that Korvosa is more than just the setting and I recommended them to create characters that had a connection to the city. As a result I've ended up with a group that has motivations, friends, family and feel part of the world. They're not passive participants but rather they clearly have a stake in the city and a reason to become heroes. I would argue that if the players feel like they're passive participants in the AP then the DM is probably the one missing the point not necessarily the module.
Well my problem isn't there is a beginning, middle and end, but rather that it is laid out in the material. IMO, that should come about as a consequence of play, even if there is an ultimate goal. If you're trying to play out an established narrative, well quite frankly you're wasting the potential of a tabletop RPG. Why limit you're self to what somebody else has written when you're theoretically limited only by you're imagination? I can think of only one reason, which is that you don't have the time to create you're own material, in which case wouldn't it be better for whomever you're getting the material from in the first place to provide more material that is wider in scope? I'm not suggesting that the idea of campaigns focused on a single story are wrong, though I am suggesting that that story should not be already told.
When I run a campaign, I typically do mix and match, pulling adventures out of a predefined path or putting adventures into a path, as the campaign needs.
If the PCs want to go far away from where the next adventure in the path takes place, I'll find something else for them to do. Or, if they are on another path and it might be convenient to pull in something from Children of the Void, I'll do that.
I did run into trouble once, when I needed a town, so I pulled one out of an 11th level adventure. (The PCs were 5th level.) The PCs started investigating the NPCs even though I was not planning on actually involving them in that adventure. I'll have to watch those red herrings in the future, but I got them out of town before they started challenging the town succubus.
As for why I buy modules if I am not going to use the pathline, sometimes I do use the pathline. If I don't, I still find the modules to be a great time saver.
For what its worth re the APs its up to both the players and the DMs to make what they want of the game. I've ran Savage Tide and am running Crimson Throne. The campaign provides a framework but I've never felt it to be a straightjacket. As a DM I alter elements to suit my style and the players. Like any game the players create their own characters and goals and as a DM its up to me to try to respond to those and weave them into the campaign and allow their decisions to change or modify the course of events.
Its a matter of collaboration. When I started the Crimson Throne I told the players upfront that Korvosa is more than just the setting and I recommended them to create characters that had a connection to the city. As a result I've ended up with a group that has motivations, friends, family and feel part of the world. They're not passive participants but rather they clearly have a stake in the city and a reason to become heroes. I would argue that if the players feel like they're passive participants in the AP then the DM is probably the one missing the point not necessarily the module.
I would maintain that yes, sometimes it can be a straightjacket, because people do not have time to make they're own material. In which case they would have no choices other than railroad or not play. I am suggesting a way in which this problem may, perhaps, be rectified.
Well my problem isn't there is a beginning, middle and end, but rather that it is laid out in the material. IMO, that should come about as a consequence of play, even if there is an ultimate goal. If you're trying to play out an established narrative, well quite frankly you're wasting the potential of a tabletop RPG. Why limit you're self to what somebody else has written when you're theoretically limited only by you're imagination? I can think of only one reason, which is that you don't have the time to create you're own material, in which case wouldn't it be better for whomever you're getting the material from in the first place to provide more material that is wider in scope? I'm not suggesting that the idea of campaigns focused on a single story are wrong, though I am suggesting that that story should not be already told.
Players can make an infinite about of choices so it is nigh impossible to cover all possibilities in a written module. My players "go off the path" a lot, and I have to wing things until I get them back on it. They never "go off the path" in the exact same way either. If you have very creative players the scope can't be covered. Many times the published modules will say if they players do X then A happens, and if they to Y then B happens, but sometimes they do C*, and that is probably about as good as its going to get.
C=It's up the DM at that point.
That's the problem that you're thinking in terms of a path. You don't have to present it that way. I'm not saying prepare for any possible eventually just don't have a "path".
I think the trick is to have multiple paths and spare modules available so if they do go off you can let them wander into another storyline.
Of course, something might go terribly wrong with the original storyline...
The other thing is to be able to consider what could happen to the "path" if things don't go as planned. For example, sometimes an adventure path will rely on an NPC doing something at some point, and I immediately start thinking "what if this NPC is NOT able to do this, what happens then?"
Usually it's not hard to see different possibilities, and often I'll throw some new possibilities in.
What your looking for is simply not an AP.
What your looking for is simply not an AP.
Precisely my point.
They make products for you, stand alone adventures as well as the Chronicles line. The AP's will never be what you want. Nothing wrong with that but your asking to fix what is not broke, it's just not your taste
I'm saying it is broke, the very idea of an adventure path is flawed.
Of course, you're opinion in no less valid than mine. But do you think there is any reason not to increase the scope of adventure paths?
That's the problem that you're thinking in terms of a path. You don't have to present it that way. I'm not saying prepare for any possible eventually just don't have a "path".
How could it not be either/or? Either the path is laid out(to an extent) or you let the players determine everything from A to Z, and you react accordingly.
Edit: If the story is not already told*, then the DM has to tell it, which would put him right back at writing the adventure again.
*Referenced from one of your earlier post.
I'm saying it is broke, the very idea of an adventure path is flawed.
Of course, you're opinion in no less valid than mine. But do you think there is any reason not to increase the scope of adventure paths?
I do not find it flawed, they seem to sell well enough that most folks would tend to disagree with you. Again what your wanting is Not and AP, which by default is very planned and laid out, the sandbox type of homebrew stuff would make a pretty bad product,unless it was a single book of ideals
Yes I'm saying that the players should determine all of they're choices. It's the players and the DM that tell the story. However, if you present material that is not in a set path you can give them the materials to tell the story without forcing the DM to railroad.
Yep and that is pure sandbox, which is fine but is nothing like an AP and would not work in that line at all.
Yes I'm saying that the players should determine all of they're choices. It's the players and the DM that tell the story. However, if you present material that is not in a set path you can give them the materials to tell the story without forcing the DM to railroad.
Wouldn't the monsters, NPC's and so on be influenced(fight nor not fight as an example) by what the PC's do?
If the players can circumvent the monsters and the NPC's, and the DM is still writing the story then what exactly is Paizo giving you?What material do you expect to use that a player can't just get around in a sandbox fashion?
Yep and that is pure sandbox, which is fine but is nothing like an AP and would not work in that line at all.
No it isn't. In a sandbox you have no set goal other than those the players come up with. In this you would have a goal like "stop the rise of Karzoug". It's sandboxish, but not pure sandbox.
Sandbox is not an AP. Your looking for a long term sandbox style goal, without any AP thrown in, so I kinda at a loss as to what it has to do with the AP line. An open ended approach would not sell. Most folks do not want 6 books of build your own adventure.
The problem is, you can publish a sandbox adventure, and you can run a sandbox campaign, but its really hard to publish a sandbox campaign, because the matrix of potential choices across even 15 levels becomes nearly impossible to manage if you don't assume the PCs go in certain directions.
I appreciate that APs aren't for you, but I don't think that constitutes APs being "flawed."
|
There is plenty of sandbox in Pathfinder, and a lot of it is in the APs. The haunted Castle Scarwall is both a part of an AP and a site of interest on the campaign map. Just like the Sunken Queen, the city of Xin Shalast, or Skull's Crossing. Other stand-alone adventures have other sites integrated, be they towns, cities or dungeons of note.
Just because a site is detailed in an installment of an adventure path doesn't mean it is useless for sandbox play.
Having said that, I wonder if the OP has read any of the complete APs yet. Entire parts of each can be bypassed or ignored, and there are even sidebars suggesting such. In RotRL, you can't just go "level up" and take on the BBEG, because without the first 5 installments, you won't even know a BBEG exists. The entire first half of that AP is semi-sandbox, in that you wander all over southern Varisia before you even know there is a greater plot afoot. They also give you LOTS of distractions and a very loose timetable, so you can do your own thing all over the place and get back to the "path" at your own leisure. There is a suggested course to follow, but perusing any of the dedicated message boards for each AP will show a ton of alternative means of connecting plot elements, and reading AP-based story hours will likewise show lots of roleplaying opportunities and customization as well.
In short, it's a "path", not a "railroad".
Most folks do not want 6 books of build your own adventure.
+1
If I still have to put the adventure together why should I give Paizo money? <----Rhetorical question.
In this situation, LordZack, you're actually literally wrong. If your initial post was something like "I don't like APs, they're dumb and stupid and I hate them," then that would be an unverifiable opinion. However, when you say (as you have multiple times here) that they are in fact FLAWED because of your notions, that IS verifiable as incorrect by simply looking at the sales numbers and the fact that the APs are a large part of Paizo's income.
So...they're not going to change them, because they work for far more people than they don't. Buy something else.
Well that is a possibility. I do think adventure paths are flawed, otherwise I wouldn't dislike them. Furthermore, I do not think that what I am describing
But let's say that say, instead of assuming that every group will go after Aldern after they complete Burnt Offerings, provide for other possibilities. What do you think of that?
|
How could it not be either/or? Either the path is laid out(to an extent) or you let the players determine everything from A to Z, and you react accordingly.
Edit: If the story is not already told*, then the DM has to tell it, which would put him right back at writing the adventure again.
+1
No matter how you slice it, the DM has to have prepared at least a little material in advance to frame a story, the players have to react to that material in order to fill the story in; a series of events, or a path, if you will. An AP is just a pre-determined series of events, which is endlessly useful to people with time-consuming obligations to jobs, families, and school.
Anywho, the idea of an Adventure Path isn't flawed unless you absolutely want it to be; APs are really just one possible string of connected incidents in the wide scope of the world, they are simply scenarios that players will more likely than not want to pursue to the finish. There are no rules in any of the paths that say you can't change the pace, add, or subtract elements to convenience your playstyle.
Which leads to my point:
No it isn't. In a sandbox you have no set goal other than those the players come up with. In this you would have a goal like "stop the rise of Karzoug". It's sandboxish, but not pure sandbox.
The players' goals are never, ever determined by the Adventure Path. Ever. Their goals are their own, and they pursue them as they desire. The TL;DR of my post is that an AP is no different than a Free-Form/Sandbox game - the AP just gets you into a campaign, and introduces an interesting story far quicker - additionally, the AP does not dictate, or in any way tell the story, it simply provides a stage for the participants to to do so.
If you think for one minute that you aren't being led down a path after you determine your character goals in any game that doesn't involve endlessly rolling on random encounter charts you're quite mistaken.
......, provide for other possibilities. What do you think of that?
How, and this ties in with a post you did not respond to?
Sheboygen, just gave it a +1 in case you missed it.
In this situation, LordZack, you're actually literally wrong. If your initial post was something like "I don't like APs, they're dumb and stupid and I hate them," then that would be an unverifiable opinion. However, when you say (as you have multiple times here) that they are in fact FLAWED because of your notions, that IS verifiable as incorrect by simply looking at the sales numbers and the fact that the APs are a large part of Paizo's income.
So...they're not going to change them, because they work for far more people than they don't. Buy something else.
Why are you getting so hostile? Is it somehow wrong to have a strongly held opinion? I believe that adventure paths are bad. I believe this is objectively true that's why I'm saying it. If you have a different opinion that does not mean I am saying you're a bad person. I am merely trying to discuss this idea.
Yeah, to further elaborate without really elaborating, there are times when something just needs to be resolved in the AP, but how its resolved doesn't really matter. The PCs may take the most obvious route, or they may come up with some solution that is completely different.
When I've run adventure paths, I rarely take anything out of the AP, but I often throw other things into them to personalize the AP for the players at the table, and most APs give ample background material for a GM to draw from to add extra information without feeling like they are making everything up with no connection to the AP or the setting.
Why are you getting so hostile? Is it somehow wrong to have a strongly held opinion? I believe that adventure paths are bad. I believe this is objectively true that's why I'm saying it. If you have a different opinion that does not mean I am saying you're a bad person. I am merely trying to discuss this idea.In this situation, LordZack, you're actually literally wrong. If your initial post was something like "I don't like APs, they're dumb and stupid and I hate them," then that would be an unverifiable opinion. However, when you say (as you have multiple times here) that they are in fact FLAWED because of your notions, that IS verifiable as incorrect by simply looking at the sales numbers and the fact that the APs are a large part of Paizo's income.
So...they're not going to change them, because they work for far more people than they don't. Buy something else.
The post did seem hostile but I think it is partly due to the fact that you have yet to say how your idea could work.
You answering my previous questions might shed some light on it, but I won't ask again. I will just assume you have no answer.
Why are you getting so hostile? Is it somehow wrong to have a strongly held opinion? I believe that adventure paths are bad. I believe this is objectively true that's why I'm saying it. If you have a different opinion that does not mean I am saying you're a bad person. I am merely trying to discuss this idea.
Okay, but it's NOT objectively true. As in, I'm not stating an opinion there. When you say that you think they are bad, you're being SUBjective.
Therein is the root of the problem here: you're pontificating heavily when you say that they are bad, instead of saying they're simply not for you.
And for what it's worth, I'm not angry or hostile. I'm just trying to be very concise and straightforward.
|
Well that is a possibility. I do think adventure paths are flawed, otherwise I wouldn't dislike them. Furthermore, I do not think that what I am describing
But let's say that say, instead of assuming that every group will go after Aldern after they complete Burnt Offerings, provide for other possibilities. What do you think of that?
Um... Don't take this the wrong way, but your argument that "The adventure paths are flawed, otherwise I wouldn't dislike them".
I mean, I don't like techno music. Techno music isn't flawed, I'm sure it does the job for the people who do enjoy it. I'm not going to ask DJs of the world to change to Jazz and Blues because I don't like Techno.
In the same vein, the Adventure Paths do the job they advertise doing. Telling a story with a beginning middle and end. For the most part the PCs will follow the path as written, because of the big honking signs that say: "Adventure This Way". Now sometimes they won't, and as a DM you'll have to improvise with a back issue of Dungeon, or one of Paizo's adventure stand-alone adventure modules. Perhaps you might even have to write your own adventure, or pull something from another adventure path. (I grabbed Sixfold Trial from Council of Thieves and inserted into Curse of the Crimson Throne, seamlessly).
If you're looking for a sandbox then perhaps the Adventure Path isn't for you. But to posit that the Adventure Path is flawed, when it never advertised being a sandbox in the first place is... well a flawed argument.
Well I have to disagree with the OP - Adventure Paths are FANTASTIC, for those that want Adventure Paths.
My personal preference is to build my own campaign, but I recognise that this is a feat not suitable for everyone. Not everyone has the time, patience, resources, time, motivation, or just plain interest in building what can be an undertaking of Herculean scale.
For guys that just wanna kick back and have some fun D&D with beer and pretzels, (or just take a few nights off building weighty campaigns) I would argue that APs are not only NOT flawed, but are indeed heaven on a stick.
No one is making me buy an AP, nor you either, perhaps the Pathfinder crew might what together a campaign world for you at some point more to your tastes - and that might be where your $'s are better spent.
|
|
Well that is a possibility. I do think adventure paths are flawed, otherwise I wouldn't dislike them. Furthermore, I do not think that what I am describing
I get you feel they are railroads. However there is still a lot of freedom, even in the path you describe. The entire idea that you are putting forth is to scrap the entire idea of Adventure Paths. However, this is a dangerous trap, as in destroying adventure paths, you create a vacuum. There is nothing that can fill the space that goes in, because to create a "sand box style" that ultimately has the goal of "Kill Karzoug" would require a lot of things.
1) The knowledge of ancient Thassalon.
2) The knowledge that Karzoug is awake and active again.
3) The idea of where to go to find Xin-Shalast.
You could potentially create all of them, but what woudl that look like in print Lord Zack? There in lies the problem. Creating a single book that sandboxes the entire campaign is all well and good, but that's one book.
Also, what about DM's that don't have the ability to sandbox a campaign? I know my DM for CotCT doesn't have the time anymore to write up an intricate campaign. Instead the Adventure Path helps him in having all that stuff ready to go from the beginning. There, is where the main problem lies, you can't make everyone happy.
So they did the next best thing, they made MOST people happy, and got the lion's share of the market.
I'm sorry that you are hard core sandboxing it, but some of us would rather have something more stable and prepared in mind.
But let's say that say, instead of assuming that every group will go after Aldern after they complete Burnt Offerings, provide for other possibilities. What do you think of that?
Once again, sorry that adventure path's aren't your cup of tea, but ostracizing a sizable chunk of people (IE: Those who are too busy with life to be able to write adventures all the time) isn't the way to go. The adventure paths are designed to be there for those who need the lion's share of the work done for them.
There is nothing that says you can't get all six books of a path, and rewrite it however you want. But then you're homebrewing and that's NOT something Paizo will have any say in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep and that is pure sandbox, which is fine but is nothing like an AP and would not work in that line at all.No it isn't. In a sandbox you have no set goal other than those the players come up with. In this you would have a goal like "stop the rise of Karzoug". It's sandboxish, but not pure sandbox.
Have you checked out Conquest of the Bloodsworn Vale? That sounds more like what you're describing. Its sandbox-y but still with a goal, some set pieces connected to the overarching problem.
And for what its worth declaring your opinion is objective. Well, really? I mean of course people are going to get their back up when you state things in such a fashion.
|
|
Lets not forget the fact that you have been stating your opinion as fact. There is no qualifiers of "This is my opinion" only a blanket statement that Adventure Paths are "flawed". You continue to state this, unless you react to someone saying "that's not true" and you retort with "well its my opinion."
If you are going to throw opinions around like they're facts, expect others to get their choler up. I would suggest adding qualifiers to your statements, because you do a horrible job of stating opinions.
I understand EXACTLY what the OP is saying. I bought a Pepsi yesterday and it didn't taste at all like Mountain Dew. Don't get me wrong, I like Pepsi, and they make a wonderful product enjoyed by millions, but it should taste like Mountain Dew. I hope Pepsi fixes this flaw soon. :)
|
But the idea of adventure paths is somewhat problematic. The idea that you must go here, here and here on you're way from the beginning of the campaign to the climatic clash with the big bad.
To be honest, I've never seen the AP's this way. In the Runelords-AP, most if not all events in the adventures aren't necessary storywise so you can easily replace them with your own ideas or take ideas from other adventures. There is no must involved. And the background articles in each issue are a treasure if your party wants to take another route.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Perhaps, instead of just having one path, there can be more than one, all leading to the conclusion, though the conclusion may change depending on what paths are taken. And the paths are not just stuff that happens, but more along the lines of situations that the PCs can get involved with. Thus the players' choices and actions are not a hindrance to the progression of the adventure, but a driving force behind it.
First, there are more than one AP. I'll never be able to run all material Paizo publishes (not to speak the material produced by other publishers), so while running RotRL I can use the other APs to mine ideas from. If my players want to visit Magnimar? Fine, I'm ready for that. Korvosa? Check!. Riddleport? Check! And so on.
One the other hand, and that may be the real problem with your approach, Paizo will never be able to foresee what my players intend to do. I'm used to integrate my player's character backgrounds into the AP, so often my game is not about defeating the AP's BBEG but about reaching the PC's individual goals (which may or may not make it necessary to defeat the AP's BBEG). No matter how much Paths Paizo puts into one AP, chances are that my players' characters take another route. So basically Paizo would produce a lot of material I may not have any immediate use for.
Paizo's AP format has to major advantages for me: first, it gives me a good read and second, it gives me a lot of material. My responsibility as a DM is to use this material according to the wishes and ideas of my players. And the simple thing to do if you don't want your players to feel like on a railroad is just to not use the AP as such.
Though to be honest one more time, my players seem much more interested in following the Path than I am to force them to go this Path. Seems that Paizo's doing something right here. At least as far as my players are concerned. :)
|
|
Duh, they're called Adventure *Paths*. A path means that you go from point A to point B and X,Y and Z happen along the way.
And from a perspective of somebody who is short on time to home-brew adventures and run sandboxes they are a marvel.
Coincidentally, I was quite annoyed by the "optional" set pieces and damn happy to see them go the way of dodo.
Do you know how awkward it is to say, "Oh yeah, this is just my opinion" every time you say something? There should be no need to weaken my statement with a qualifier. That is in fact a wide ranging problem that stretches far beyond just discussions of roleplaying into such tricky topics as politics and religion. Which is why I don't want to discuss it. I'm sorry if I offended anybody, but I believe what I believe and I'm not going to water it down. I do not seek to insult anyone, but merely to be assertive. So let's just drop all this talk of objectivity and get down to the real business at hand?
Railroading is a problem. There are many long threads about players getting off the rails on many forums. In fact there is an active on going on right now, So, has this AP's plot mistep appeared yet?. The fact that there can be said to be such a thing as missteps, is a flaw in the concept of adventure paths. Unfortunately at this point I see no feasible way for Paizo to implement this idea in full. But I hope they at least see this and take it into consideration. It should be possible to think of at least a few different "paths" and work them in.
I ran a campaign where I was throwing out tons of hooks to see which ones the PCs picked up on, and I was more or less custom designing the campaign, and I had one player that was completely lost during the whole campaign, because he didn't want to direct the campaign, he wanted me to point his character in a direction, and it bothered him to not know "what he was suppose to do."
I started running APs in part because I had a tendency, when trying to run "sandbox" style campaigns, to overly specialize the campaigns to characters, and then that player misses several sessions in a row and characters that have almost no connection to the plotline the group is currently following have to resolve the plot hook of another character.
So not only does it help me with my prep time to run APs, it helps to keep me from running off on tangents that turn out to be a waste of time if a player has a hard time attending for a while. I can personalize parts of the campaign, but there is always a main plot to keep the rest of the group on course if someone can't attend for a while.
